CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
German Artists' Writings in the XX Century - 9
Max Liebermann
Briefe [Letters]
Collected, annotated and edited by Ernst Braun
Volume Two (1896-1901)
2012, 579 pages, Baden-Baden, Deutscher Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV)
Part Two
Review by Francesco Mazzaferro
[Original version: November 2016 - New Version: April 2019]
 |
| Fig. 17) The title page of the catalogue (second edition) of the first exhibition of the Berlin Secession in May 1899. Source: http://www.digishelf.de/objekt/733809626-1899/1/#topDocAnchor |
Go back to Part One
Berlin: from the Group of XI to the Secession
In the course of 1896 and in the two following
years Liebermann continued animating, along with Walter Leistikow, the Group of XI [87], which he had helped
founding in Berlin in 1892. Leistikow was, along with Franz Skarbina, perhaps
the only artist of that group, whom Liebermann really appreciated.
In a letter to the writer Fritz Mauthner, he signalled him Leistikow's "Auf der Schwelle" [88]
(already reviewed in this blog in a post on the The life of Walter Leistikow by Lovis Corinth). In a slightly later
epistle, however, he confessed to Wilhelm Bode, the director of the
Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum, that the relations between the group members were
troubled by personal problems: "You
cannot imagine what a painter who has not been praised enough can do” [89].
Clearly, that experience was not considered
sufficient anymore, although it was offering him a chance to show foreign
artists to the German public (Liebermann dealt with Whistler [90] and Cazin in
1896, to expose some of their works at the exhibition of the Group of XI).
In March 1898 opened the seventh and last
performance of the XI. In a letter, written just before the exhibition, the
attention of Liebermann was all for Ludwig von Hoffmann, a group member who had
recently moved to Rome. Implicitly, the artist was hoping that his colleague
(famous for his eccentric themes) could benefit from the calming influence of
classicism [91]. But when the exposure was inaugurated, the first reaction was
not positive: "It seems to me that
the XI have thereby reached to such an extent their goal, that they could now
disband. The exhibition does not show anything new: probably Leistikow has
produced the best, but also only shown things that had already been presented.
Hoffmann has a kaleidoscope-style and quite embarrassing nonsense, with red
trees [Editor's note: Adam and Eve in paradise]. But I believe that red trees are not in themselves sufficient to show
the painter's genius. I'm not against art madness, but a little talent does not
hurt to madness. As big shot we had invited Baluschek to the exhibition, but in
order not to shock the court circles (...) his things were hung there where he
could not be seen by anyone. The same applies to the works of [editor's
note: Martin] Brandenburg and the empty mediocrity
of an Albert" [92]. In short,
the experience was considered exhausted: Hoffmann and Brandenburg were clearly
influenced by a much-disliked symbolism, while Baluschek had already begun to march
in the direction of social realism. These were still very private judgments:
Hermann and von Hoffman not only were travel companions since 1892, but they
will be founding members (like indeed Baluschek) of the Secession the following
year. The full value of the publication of the integral correspondence by Braun
becomes evident when one compares these intimate views with the official
behaviour of Liebermann. This incongruence shows how he managed keeping
separate his managerial role and his private opinions on art.
The Secession as an
initiative to renew the aesthetic taste in Berlin
All secessionist movements in Europe had their
origin in Paris (Salon du Champ-de-Mars, 1890), in Munich (Secession, 1892) and
Vienna (Secession, 1897; on the latter, Liebermann never spoke in the second
volume of the letters). At the end of century the German painter was absolutely
convinced (at least in private) that Paris and Munich were in a deep crisis and
that the time had come for Berlin to take up the baton. Actually, his
conviction was exclusively epidermal, as it was based on his personal taste
rather than on any aesthetic theory. Indeed, more than an anti-system
revolution, for Liebermann the creation of the Secession in Berlin was above
all a predictable step, in line with the overall development of the new German
metropolis. He wrote to his friend Max Linde: "As for Berlin as a city of art, I am of your opinion: the government
has the best intentions and [editor's note: the culture minister] Bosse, who recently received me, had almost
more advanced positions than mine. And, to achieve this, Berlin still has a huge
advantage: Munich is dead, as evidenced by their last performance and the shows
of the Dachau school here in Berlin. The same applies to Paris. The money is here and the city is expanding,
while Paris and London have the best part of their history behind them [93]”. He
repeated the same concepts to Albert Kollmann, specifying that the Dreyfuss
scandal had greatly reduced the attractiveness of the French city for artists
and free thinkers, including for him, once so much in love with Paris [94]. But he
had however to recognize that the emperor had a fully traditional taste: "Unfortunately, we cannot enjoy the
benevolence of the Medici; on the contrary, His Majesty expressed himself
without mercy against the 'social democrats'. Well, he showed the same lack of compassion
in his judgment on Böcklin, the French and everything that revolves around art,
with the exception of Anton von Werner [95]”. To sum up, Berlin had the whole potential to see modern art growing, but there was still need for a
decisive blow against the most conservative circles, and this push will come
from the Secession.
 |
| Fig. 18) Karl Ferdinand Klimsch, Poster of the Grosse Berliner Kunstausstellung 1898 |
In the letters, the first reference to the intention to set-up the Berlin Secession dated back to May 1898. In those months Liebermann was part of the jury of the "Große Berliner Kunstaustellung" (the official show that had seen him guest of honour the year before). The Berlin artist, although flattered and honoured, was impatient: in a very private letter to Fritz Mackensen, founder of the artists' colony of Worpsede (a group of young artists inspired by the French experience of the Barbizon colony), he revealed that the Berlin jury wanted to reject all the pictures of the members of the colony, and that only his intervention had prevented the disaster: "Right now there are rumours in all directions and what has been already in the air for some time seems to materialise more and more: the Berlin Secession" [96]. And he added "This divorce is absolutely necessary" [97]. The letter, however, confirmed what was written by Lovis Corinth in his essay "The life of Walter Leistikow": the initiative to create the Secession did not actually originate from Liebermann (who, in a very first phase, looked at it with some ambiguity), but from his friend Walter Leistikow. While the news of the birth of the new organization was spreading, Julius Elias (an art critic whose relations with Liebermann had been excellent in the past, but who was more and more critical of him) even leaked the rumour that Liebermann, Skarbina and Koepping were about not to join it: the Berlin painter denied the news in a letter published in Berlin newspapers and explained he had been the first member to sign the statutes of the new association in the founding meeting, held six weeks before [98].
Some ambiguities
Consulting the catalogue of the first exhibition
of the Berlin Secession [99], one may get the - perhaps wrong - impression that
it included very few painters who were exhibited for the first time. More than
a cutting-edge platform to launch young artists, the Berlin Secession seems to have
launched a new business structure, to compete with the old one and to
consolidate the success of well-known artists. The most represented artist in
the exhibition was Leibl, with fifteen paintings, followed by Böcklin with
seven. Among the paintings of Leibl, the Young
Parisian was already famous. The same Liebermann, in his opening speech of
20 May 1899, was careful not to present the initiative as a seditious act:
"We have not decided to make the step,
fraught with consequences, to divide us from our comrades out of sheer youthful
audacity. We did not do it as enemies, but as brothers, one of which walking on
the one side while the other walks on the other. But we aspire both to the same
goal and - I am sure – we will reach it even more united after this division.
It is no coincidence that in London as well as in Paris, in Munich as in
Düsseldorf, Dresden or Karlsruhe, the artists have divided into two camps.
Nothing in life, as well as in art, is more permanent than change and
everything that is defined as taste, artistic judgment and public opinion is
fickle. The ideal of our generation is different from that of the previous year;
likewise, ours will be different compared to that of the next generation [100]”.
Maybe, my reading is an ungenerous one.
Certainly, Liebermann took some risks. Until the last minute, he did not know whether
he would be still able to organize or not an exhibition in 1899, having a very
short time to prepare it. Initially, he wrote to Walther Linde, painter and
brother of the collector Max, to tell him that the Berlin secession was most
probably obliged to be content with a performance in Munich, being hosted by
the local Secession [101]. Already in February, however, he could announce to
Lichtwark that the new Secession building had been completed in record time:
the walls were ready, and a beautiful golden light sign displayed the words
"Die deutsche Secession"
[102]. The original goal went therefore beyond Berlin, and included the whole
of Germany (the sign means 'the German secession'). The first exhibition,
moreover, exposed only German artists. On March 5, he confirmed to Walther
Linde that the exhibition was due to start as of 1 May, and invited him to
submit two pictures to the selection [103]. It was only at that point (only two
months before the inauguration) that Liebermann started the hectic work of gathering
the paintings for the show.
Looking for works to be exhibited at the first
exhibition of the Secession, Liebermann wrote to all regular correspondents and
many other counterparts to get their best and newest pieces. From the letters, it is clear that
his concern was not to take care of young talents who would be selected by the
jury, but to ensure the arrival of works by recognized artists, specifically in
order to attract the public. And here it must be said that Liebermann seems to have
been prone to compromising with many of his artistic principles. For example,
he announced to Tschudi, in April 1899, that he intended to exhibit works of
Hildebrandt, Böcklin and Leibl, and asked him to intervene in order to exhibit
paintings and sculpture that were located in their respective studios [104]. The choice of
Hildebrandt and Leibl was in line with his taste, but one may ask some
legitimate questions as to Böcklin. The Swiss painter did not meet at all the
appreciation of Liebermann: only a few months earlier, in March 1898, the latter
wrote to Max Linde: "Here we are all
lost in the enthusiasm for Böcklin and the museums are paying for Böcklin
higher sums than for Rembrandt. I do not understand why" [105].
The Swiss, however, was a real celebrity: in those days the Academy's Senate was
debating whether to assign him the medal Pour
le Mérite [106]. Liebermann, then, did not have too many
scruples and managed to get eight pictures of Böcklin to expose, thereby working
preventively to make sure the exhibition would have success with the public. He
was glad to explain to Linde that, between them, there was also a painting never
shown to the public: Deianira and Nessus
[107].
Liebermann himself addressed several letters to
the most established painters in Munich, such as von Kalkreuth [108]
and Slevogt [109], asking them to exhibit some of their best works (in the
final catalogue there will be two paintings by Kalkreuth and three by Slevogt).
He also asked the latter whether he knew sufficiently well Lovis Corinth [110] (whom Liebermann had never met) to intercede with
him in order to get some original works (he eventually succeed: two of his
paintings were exhibited). It seems clear that the trio Liebermann, Slevogt and
Corinth - known today as the backbone of German impressionism and often quoted
on a journalistic level as the core of the Secession - had not yet taken shape
at the beginning of 1899.
Liebermann also managed to obtain the
authorization of Menzel to exhibit one of his paintings and several drawings
[111]. Here it must be said, quite frankly, that Liebermann did not appreciate
how much Menzel – whom he really wholeheartedly admired - was completely misaligned with the rhetoric of the ‘alternative’ art programme of the
Secession; it is therefore not entirely surprising, then, that Menzel sent a
peremptory demand, on 19 May, that his works be withdrawn. The clash became
public and forced the board of the Secession to take a step back [112].
A few days before the opening, Liebermann took
stock: "From Munich, where I was 14
days ago, we have received all what is most important from the Secession, and
the best from Dresden, Karlsruhe and Weimar. On what we are exposing from
Berlin it is better to remain silent out of politeness: here is, I'm afraid,
the weak point. Perhaps a talented artist is growing in silence, here in
Berlin, and will be discovered in the coming days by the jury. Anyway,
mediocrity will be less noticeable here than at the local art shows, at least
thanks to the narrowness of the spaces of our shows. If any, already this
factor is a sufficient justification to our initiative” [113].
The Secession as a
commercial enterprise
 |
| Fig. 19) The new headquarters of the Secession in the Kantstrasse in Berlin. Source: Die Kunst für Alle, No. 20 of 15 July 1899, page 314. http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1898_1899/0402?sid=765ef55f8cc8d42c52da8a7d8737f6e5 |
That Liebermann was convinced of the need to
give a solid commercial basis to the Secession is evidenced by what he wrote in
February 1898, i.e. one year before the creation of the Secession. He stated to
Bode: "But the fundamental factor
that makes a city of art is money. What are the best pictures for, if they are
not bought? [114]” It was therefore necessary to find someone who would be
able to move the market with an intermediary capacity. And this person was Paul Cassirer, whose name appeared for the first time in the correspondence of the artist in July 1898,
when he was sent to Paris to deal with Rodin [115]. By the end of summer, in a
letter to Max Linde, it had already become clear that the two Cassirer cousins
(Paul and Bruno) were considered his agents [116].
To organize an exhibition is certainly also a
commercial enterprise. As Liebermann explained to the fellow painter Otto Feld,
the show was planned to be very small: "You cannot do anything else with the costs [that we must support]. There will be 250 paintings to the maximum,
of which 120-150 will be from Berlin. If you manage, please send us a picture.
Everyone is subjected to the jury, both the members and those who are sending
pictures. Of course, the jury will take into account the space limitations and
will therefore be doubly severe (if anything, an advantage) [117]”.
The gallery of the
Cassirer cousins
The first exhibition of the Cassirers was followed
by a second in March 1899, dedicated to Monet, Manet and Segantini [122].
The gallery attracted the audience for many
reasons. One of these was the decor of the reading room, designed by the
Belgian architect Henry van der Velde, in those years an iconic pioneer of
modern furniture in Berlin and Germany (in parallel, the same architect
designed the gallery "Maison modern"
of Julius Meier-Graefe in Paris). Liebermann congratulated him in particular for
the success of the library room in the Cassirer Gallery [123] In his memoirs
van der Velde wrote: "Paul and Bruno
Cassirer's art gallery in Berlin was the first commercial art facility in
Germany that devoted itself to French impressionism and the art masterpieces of
Max Liebermann, Lovis Corinth, as well as Edvard Munch. I designed for them the
furniture and decoration of the walls of a reading room, where the international
art magazines were kept" [124].
The second exhibition
of the Secession in 1900
 |
| Fig. 20) The catalogue of the exhibition of the Secession in 1900. Source:https://archive.org/stream/katalogderausste02berl#page/n7/mode/2up |
Although open to a geographically more diverse
art scene, the second exhibition was marked by a greater sense of stylistic
coherence. Liebermann sent a letter on 16 May, a week after the start of
exposure, to the art historian Gustav Pauli (1866- 1938): "Our second show" - he wrote - "is universally
acknowledged as much better than the first one; what made me particularly happy
is that we are giving value to our talent, i.e. that the exhibition is
characterized by an absolutely secessionist appearance" [126].
 |
| Fig. 21) The board of the second exhibition of the Secession in 1900: from left to right, Oskar Frenzel, Franz Skarbina, Otto Heinrich Engel, Max Liebermann, Bruno Cassirer. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liebermann_Sezessionsausstellung.jpg |
The show was a great success: "You will have already heard – Liebermann
wrote to Franz Servaes - that we achieved again a sensational deal. Like last year, we can repay 25% of the funding. And
this is really important for the future: those people who had advanced us money,
thinking never to see it again, will see that the Secession is not so senseless,
and they will give us ten times as much, the next time we will call them"
[128].
The third exhibition
of the Secession in 1901
 |
| Fig. 22) The catalogue of the third exhibition of the Secession in 1901. Source: https://archive.org/stream/katalogderausste03berl#page/n3/mode/2up |
To collect the works for the third exhibition
of the Secession, Liebermann took action at a very early stage. In January 1901
he wrote to Veth, asking for works from him and Israëls [129], and later on for
significant works by other Dutch artists [130]. A French-written letter was
sent to the Milanese Alberto Grubicy to get works of Segantini ("Two Mothers" was eventually
exposed; Segantini produced a series of paintings on that topic in those years,
and we do not know which one was exposed in Berlin). In March Liebermann made
sure he would get works by Leibl, who had died the previous year [131]: the
catalogue informs us that there were twenty paintings of him. Liebermann also tried
with great difficulty to gather works by Böcklin: the painter had died that same
year and retrospective exhibitions about him were being immediately organized
in Dresden, Munich and Basel (the catalogue contained only a not-specified painting
of him entitled 'From Italy') [132].
In April Liebermann negotiated with Théodor Duret the arrival of works by
Monet, Manet, Rodin and Werenskiold [133].
 |
| Fig. 23) One page of the catalogue of the third exhibition of the Secession, with a drawing by Max Liebermann |
Also in this case the commercial success was overwhelming: Liebermann communicated to Hans Rosenhagen, on 2 June, that sales were probably due to be only slightly lower than the 100 thousand marks [134]. On 30 June he added, writing to the same critic: "In spite of the oppressive heat, the Secession is doing very well; and we are managing to sell paintings despite the huge noise [in the exhibition rooms]. And, instead, the herd is raging more and more against us, precisely because of our success [135].
The fourth exhibition
of the Secession in December 1901
 |
| Fig. 24) The catalogue of the fourth exhibition, dedicated to graphics. Source: https://archive.org/details/katalogderausste04berl |
Obviously, the success of the Secession was so
overwhelming as to lead to a multiplication of events: shows were not held
anymore only between May (opening) and October (closing), but a second (winter)
exhibition was inaugurated for the first time in December 1901. There were
several novelties related to new event: first, the fourth exhibition was
exclusively dedicated to graphics, and therefore the most exhibited artist was
Max Klinger; secondly, letters on this exhibition included, for the first time,
an explicit reference to the Socialist movement, when commenting in particular on
Käthe Kollwitz [136]. Finally, the publishing house producing the catalogues
made reference, from now on, only reference to Paul Cassirer: in fact, the Cassirer cousins
had personal disagreements, which led them to separate their activities: the
gallery business was up to Paul, who will also continue to publish the catalogues
of the gallery; Bruno instead set up a major publishing house, which will
become the most important publisher of modern art in Germany.
 |
| Fig. 25) One page of the catalogue of the fourth exhibition of the Secession, with a drawing by Max Liebermann |
The Secession as a
form of opposition to the Emperor
Nowhere the ideological content of the
Secession became as clear as in a letter sent by Liebermann to his colleague
Hugo van Habermann on 31 December 1901. It was a reaction to a speech by
Emperor Wilhelm II held on 18 December. The Kaiser had spoken against the Secession,
and his appeal was so strong as to have scared some of the members. Liebermann
wrote: "Of course, the emperor can
at best only slow down the movement; however, if the secession – to which
belong more or less the artists with the greatest talent - remain cohesive,
then there is nothing to fear" [137].
Against academic art
and symbolism
The Secession exhibitions presented artists who
were referring to very different styles; in private, however, Liebermann could definitely
not stand two addresses in particular: academic art with a national flavour and
symbolism, the first too traditional and the other too far from the role he
assigned to nature in art. In a letter to Bode in April 1897 he urged him to
convene a meeting of the Pan magazine before leaving Berlin, with the following
motivations: "I would ask you, if
possible, to convene the Pan meeting so that it takes place before your
departure from Berlin; if you are will be absent, we will not be able to impose
ourselves against the alliance of the noble art and academics” [138]. The
elections for the editorial board were approximating. Ernst Braun gives us the
opportunity to compare the letter with the report of the meeting by Count Harry
Kessler (1868-1937), one of the greatest patrons of modern art, who discussed
at length with Bode on the topic. Kessler was clearly concerned about the
appointment of Liebermann. It is true that the painter has supported the birth
of the journal from the start and had the advantage of knowing many foreign
artists (Whistler, Watts, Manet, Pissarro), and therefore could get from them more
easily the permission to reproduce etchings, but it was a more divisive than
uniting personality. Clearly, Kessler was concerned that Liebermann would
censor symbolist ideas, which he considered more progressive.
 |
| Fig. 26) The magazine Pan in 1897 |
"There
were two kinds of concerns. Liebermann could affect in a very clear manner the
development of Pan in a naturalistic direction, and, if we did the opposite,
this would open a conflict that would lead to his resignation and to an open
confrontation. Bode replied instead that Liebermann, although he was of course
making several gags against everything was not naturalist, in practice was
ready to make whatever concessions. In confirmation of this thesis, Bode made
reference to the friendship of Liebermann with artists such as Whistler or
Hoffmann. Therefore, Liebermann would confine himself to fighting words against
idealistic or symbolist directions, but he would make nothing if he were
outvoted” [139]. Kessler said he followed the opinion of Bode,
although he was not entirely convinced by his arguments. On 23 April,
Liebermann announced his election in the editorial board to Lichtwark, but his
intentions were not peaceful: "On 2
April we held the council meeting of Pan and - as you may well know - I made entry
in the body thanks to the repeated insistence of Bode. I would like that the
illustrative apparatus becomes more objective and not so unreal, that it seems
to look like something, but actually is completely empty. I am convinced that
madness is not in itself a sufficient criterion for talent and an attitude as a
philistine [i.e. an antagonist attitude] in art seems to me better than any
brilliant actionism. Bode has left today, but I am convinced that Seidlitz,
you, Kopping and I will be able to oppose sufficiently to the onslaught of
these eccentric mavericks" [140]. Thus, the Symbolists are meant
to be unreal, empty, actionist and crazy.
 |
| Fig. 27) The first part of the article by Franz Servaes on Liebermann, in the Neue Freie Presse of 10 October 1900 |
In 1900 Liebermann wrote to the journalist
Franz Servaes (actually, a pseudonym for Albrecht Schütze) proposing, against
symbolism, all the reasons that Goethe had once opposed to the Sturm und Drang and to the early romanticism.
Servaes had just written a long laudatory article about the painter, published
by the Viennese newspaper Neue Freie
Presse, and Liebermann so thanked him: "I'm really glad you share my concerns against the silly symbolism. By
itself, I do not really have anything against symbolism. I do not care if art
is manifested in one or another form. What makes me angry is the petty
hypocrisy, this actionism beneath which lurks impotence. As our common friend
Goethe once said: 'The propensity of the new times to mysticism is explained by
the fact that, following the new fashion, it is necessary to learn less'. (...)
'They [the new artists] want instead the so-called poetic and this only leads
to nonsense', Goethe wrote to his friend Merck. And anyway (as you can probably
sense from my anger against them), I am not afraid of the Symbolists, who will
disappear very soon from painting for one of their follies. They can at most
slow down a bit the path of the development of art, but I am convinced that
such path shall eventually be strengthened after this sick fashion will have
been overcome, like any man after overcoming a crisis" [141].
For naturalism
Sometimes, some (excessively) strong
expressions may be used to express aesthetic concepts. Liebermann could have not
be clearer (and more vulgar), when he reaffirmed concepts dear to him, in a
letter to the Dutch painter Jan Veth: "If
I were not a good family man, I would have come to Holland to paint directly
from nature. Everything else is nothing. Nature is the beginning and the end of
all the arts: a painter who works not on the basis of nature is like one who
makes nothing else but masturbating during his wedding night" [142].
It is therefore no surprise that Liebermann took
a position in favour of all art movements that were inspired by French
Naturalism (although, in truth, also symbolist influences showed themselves within
them). Therefore, he had words of appreciation for the young artists in the
colony of artists of Worpsede who followed Franz Mackesen (1866-1953) and moved
to the countryside in Lower Saxony since 1889, on the model of the Barbizon
school. So in 1897 Liebermann wrote to Kollmann: "Today I was visited by Mackesen from Worpsede, near Bremen, who left me
with an absolutely positive impression. He seems to be a very strong and enthusiastic young about his art. Even his friend Vogel, who accompanied him,
is a gentleman, and also seems to have the advantage of not having to depend on
art, because he left me three thousand marks for Pan" [143]. It is unbelievable, but true: the
famous and rich fifty-year painter got funding by an unknown twenty-five year
young artist!
A real surprise: the
interest in the Biedermeier painting
The aversion to aesthetic conceptualism filling
German art in the nineteenth century was so strong, that Liebermann revalued
Biedermeier style, i.e. the most conservative style of the first half of the
century. He wrote their panegyric to Lichtwark in 1899: "It is time to rediscover the Biedermeier period. Franz Krueger alone
holds ahead of all idealists, neo-Impressionists, symbolists, pointillists and
all other ist-artists. Everybody can make art in his own way" [144].
And Lichtwark responded, agreeing: "I was also asked: «Look, I do not
understand. You have a passion for Liebermann and at the same time for Hamburg
Biedermeier? Is it really possible? How can you say it seriously? »” [145]
The anti-Semitic
attack of 1901
One cannot fully understand the sense of
disorientation that captured Liebermann in 1901, when he was attacked frontally
by Franz Grau (the pseudonym of an obscure critic, actually called Paul Gurk),
if one does not read the letters in which he emphasized his substantial
religious ecumenism, already noted when reviewing the first volume. In 1897 he
wrote to Walter Rathenau, his close friend (and future prime minister of the
Weimar Republic, the future victim of an anti-Semitic terrorist attack in
1922). To Rathenau, who had written in 1896 a very critical article vis-à-vis his
brothers of religion, Liebermann recommended a more inclusive and tolerant
attitude: "I look to the Jews in an
affectionate way, or at least I am trying to do it; the poorest ones - since the very
rich are aiming at being baptized - are forced to commit their mistakes, if and
when they make mistakes. But you can basically accuse the majority of
Christians for the same mistakes that you attribute to the Jews. At the very
end, they are all human beings, who do not differ so much between each other.
And also the Jews have produced respectable people: Jesus, the poets of the
Psalms, Spinoza and your cousin" [146]. In 1897 Liebermann
participated in the project of an illustrated Bible edited in Amsterdam by
Walter Crane (who commissioned one hundred tables to the most famous artists),
and he decides to produce a scene from the old testament (Job and three friends [147]), but also one from the Acts of the
apostles (Paul and the snake) [148].
In short, from a religious point of view, Liebermann did not give proof of orthodoxy,
but of great openness to different cultures.
There is another indication of how naive Liebermann
was on these issues. In fact, he was corresponding [149] with Paul
Schultze-Naumburg (1869-1949; also here a pseudonym, as the real name was Paul
Eduard Schultze), who, from the early twentieth century on, will be one of the most
traditionalist and national-minded theorists of German architecture (preaching
the so-called Heimatstil) and then will
write a manifesto of Nazi art in the 1930s. It is true that the first letters were
from 1898 (when Schultze-Naumburg was only thirty) and that at that stage he was
more concerned with painting than architecture. In fact, he published in 1896
and in 1898 the first two texts on the "Course of studies of the modern painter. A guide for students"(Der Studiengang des modernen Malers. Ein
Vademecum für Studierende) and "On
painting technique "(Die Technik der Malerei), which will be followed
by many other texts on the theory and practice of painting. And yet - even
before marrying nationalsocialism - he must have probably been person of a very
conservative taste, in the sense of a "völkisch" aesthetic taste, i.e.
a militant right populist.
Just within days of the anti-Semitic attack, Liebermann
turned to Paul Schultze-Naumburg: in order to discuss his recent book, which
argued in favour of a return to simplicity in art. For Liebermann,
it was an opportunity to reaffirm the principle that a simple observation of
the work of art was often much more revealing than art criticism ("an unintended nonsense" [150]) and
to praise the simplicity of the Barbizon school compared to the complexity of
the Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo [151] However, Liebermann also added some
words revealing that Schultze-Naumburg was politically already leaning towards
the far right: "If the most useless
things that have ever been written are in social-democratic magazines like
'Vorwärts' [Forward], I believe instead that a return to good taste will
originate from below" [152]. In short, the Berlin painter was
joking with fire, probably without realizing it. A ‘retro’ aesthetic seemed him
better than revolutionary aesthetics, but naively he did not fully understand
what was ultimately at stake.
Back to Grau. In the "Deutsche Zeitschrift" of December 1901 he published a short
article, attacking frontally Liebermann, the Cassirer cousins and Rosenhagen.
The main accusation to the four was that Liebermann had personally enriched
thanks to the affairs with the Bruno and Paul Cassirer gallery, and that behind
this group of power there was collusion between members of the Jewish world
[153]. The following issue of the magazine entailed a statement of denial from
the Berlin Secession [154], an introduction to the controversy by the direction
of the magazine and a replica of Grau.
Liebermann wrote to Adolf Linde, brother of the
friend and collector Max Linde, in December 1901: "You see, I'm in a good mood. It comes from the fact that I was attacked
by a bloodthirsty anti-Semitic person, who has slandered me in such a
treacherous way, a few days ago; he did it in a way it had never happened to me
during my thirty year career. And it is better to hurry up laughing about it,
rather than having to cry “ [155].
NOTES
[88] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 56
[89] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 27
[90] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 61
[91] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 205
[92] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 206
[93] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 201
[94] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 204
[95] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 294
[96] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 218
[97] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 218
[98] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 222
[99] Si veda: http://www.digishelf.de/objekt/733809626-1899/1/#topDocAnchor
[100] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 471
[101] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 262
[102] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 271
[103] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 279
[104] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 284
[105] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 205
[106] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 283
[107] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 293
[108] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 287
[109] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 289
[110] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 290
[111] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 469
[112] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), pp. 470-471
[113] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 293
[114] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 200
[115] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 224
[116] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 236
[117] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 278
[118] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 243
[119] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 244
[120] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 245
[121] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 259
[122] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 280
[123] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 256
[124] Van de Velde Henry, Geschichte meines Lebens, Monaco, Piper Verlag, 1962, 544 pages. Quotation at page 170.
[125] See: https://archive.org/stream/katalogderausste02berl#page/n7/mode/2up
[126] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 353
[127] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 357
[128] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 366
[129] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 376
[130] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 383
[131] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 383
[132] See: https://archive.org/stream/katalogderausste03berl#page/n3/mode/2up
[133] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), pp. 394 and 397
[134] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 401
[135] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 407
[136] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 428
[137] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 435
[138] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 96
[139] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 441
[140] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 99
[141] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 365-366
[142] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 150
[143] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 95
[144] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 268
[145] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 272
[146] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 66
[147] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 167
[148] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 140
[149] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 255
[150] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 432
[151] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 433
[152] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 433
[153] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 480-481
[154] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 486-487
[155] Liebermann, Max - Briefe. Volume 2, (quoted), p. 430
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento